I would argue:
1. BTC: 70% consistent, 20% decentralized, 10% scale
2. dPOS: 50% scale, 40% consistent, 10% decentral
3. TAU: 70% decentral, 20% consistent, 10% scale.
Topic: TAUCoin “Proof of Transaction” - features debate and bounty for 12 months - page 2. (Read 26488 times)
November 21, 2018, 04:09:39 AM
10kb per minute on settlement layer is new but good for decentralization. The triangle, "decentralizing, consistent and scale", we would choose first two and trade off scaling. the future world in my imaging will be major application such as search engine, social and commerce running on dPOS semi-decentral consensus to gain scaling. TAU could use side-chain to settle with dPOS tokens to gain speed and other features. 10KB per minute is possible to gain millions of miners to join. so does crypto currency need millions of miner to protect it? or just less than 100 miners can hold the trust of the world?
I would argue:
1. BTC: 70% consistent, 20% decentralized, 10% scale
2. dPOS: 50% scale, 40% consistent, 10% decentral
3. TAU: 70% decentral, 20% consistent, 10% scale.
I would argue:
1. BTC: 70% consistent, 20% decentralized, 10% scale
2. dPOS: 50% scale, 40% consistent, 10% decentral
3. TAU: 70% decentral, 20% consistent, 10% scale.
November 17, 2018, 03:10:11 AM
I love the feedback on keeping us focused and simple as basic coin settlement layer.
A key decision is made and very bold. "reduce the block size to 10kb" aims to support massive decentralized mobile nodes mining.
Peer to peer communication among millions of mobile devices require smaller block size. This is to increase data availability, resulting to provide high security. we believe security is upmost importance, given the recent BCH 51% attack show. We adjust our spirit to "light and secure". this puts us in a very unique position comparing to other coins increasing block size, which will cause centralization, due to less nodes have full capture of blocks on time. The reason for 10kb is average ethereum block is 50kb. As an experimental currency, we want to start with high security, 10kb makes us look not sexy, but 10kb blocks size in a pure mobile environment is very cool.
what is your feedback?
A key decision is made and very bold. "reduce the block size to 10kb" aims to support massive decentralized mobile nodes mining.
Peer to peer communication among millions of mobile devices require smaller block size. This is to increase data availability, resulting to provide high security. we believe security is upmost importance, given the recent BCH 51% attack show. We adjust our spirit to "light and secure". this puts us in a very unique position comparing to other coins increasing block size, which will cause centralization, due to less nodes have full capture of blocks on time. The reason for 10kb is average ethereum block is 50kb. As an experimental currency, we want to start with high security, 10kb makes us look not sexy, but 10kb blocks size in a pure mobile environment is very cool.
what is your feedback?
November 14, 2018, 10:47:59 AM
so why not just using smart contract in side chain? shall tau main net settlement layer support smart contract at all? UTXO is not able to support Turing complete smart contract. TAU is using utxo now.
I think it is already great that we have utxo now and it might be a lot of trouble if we consider "again" in terms of smart contract. If in the future someone wants to create apps/program using taucoin, they can just do so, create another coin using taucoin as base coin. In the simplest way possible, taucoin can provide greater benefits and usage for all even with or without smart contracts. As I've said earlier, a second-layer platform is possible if devs really will push through but for the meantime let's keep it this simple. Just in my humble opinion.
November 13, 2018, 05:19:38 AM
so why not just using smart contract in side chain? shall tau main net settlement layer support smart contract at all? UTXO is not able to support Turing complete smart contract. TAU is using utxo now.
November 13, 2018, 04:10:16 AM
are we going to support smart contract? love to hear feedback. pro and cons
Let's go for it. I also want to suggest that we have a "2nd layer blockchain",.. same protocols just not on a different blockchain. To ease traffic and congestion in the future transaction. Not that TAU's blockchain is inefficient but we need to back it up Justa thought..
ANyway, smart contracts are great deal to increase usage as well.. Governments/community/businessess can use tau in any level with smart contracts.
November 12, 2018, 10:17:09 PM
are we going to support smart contract? love to hear feedback. pro and cons
There are just a few pros and cons for this one but i would like to state the obvious.
Pros: a. security - since it is run on blockchain, it will not be lost or changed without permission
b. economy and speed. - almost automatic
c. standardization - many smart contracts classification.
Cons: a. cost - need a programmer esp one trained in fool proof blockchain technology
b. legality - there is a potential issue for this in the future
c. human error. - programmers who "unknowingly" create mistakes might compromise the whole system.
November 12, 2018, 09:38:20 PM
... continue the transaction spam discussion...
in email work, spam is popular because of the cost of sending email is close to zero. in TAU network, the cost of spam transaction is not cost zero, that require transaction fee satisfying miners. making lots of transaction increasing mining power is viewed as action to invest into tau future.
what is your idea?
in email work, spam is popular because of the cost of sending email is close to zero. in TAU network, the cost of spam transaction is not cost zero, that require transaction fee satisfying miners. making lots of transaction increasing mining power is viewed as action to invest into tau future.
what is your idea?
This is great. POT is great. Transactions generated whether for "real" or "spam" will benefit all miners in the end. More and more miners will capitalize in this project as this does not cost so much "financially" for everyone.
November 12, 2018, 03:42:19 PM
are we going to support smart contract? love to hear feedback. pro and cons
November 12, 2018, 12:11:00 PM
ok thanks i got some TAUS again
November 11, 2018, 12:10:48 PM
... discussion on speed up ...
Bitcoin lightning network aims to provide fast payment routing and channel. Many bitcoin wallets start to support connect to LN.
TAU coin mobile miner is naturally fitting to provide payment channel on mobile network. so that, pot settlement layer will focus on security, then lightning network can speed up the transactions.
Bitcoin lightning network aims to provide fast payment routing and channel. Many bitcoin wallets start to support connect to LN.
TAU coin mobile miner is naturally fitting to provide payment channel on mobile network. so that, pot settlement layer will focus on security, then lightning network can speed up the transactions.
November 10, 2018, 09:18:19 PM
... continue the transaction spam discussion...
in email work, spam is popular because of the cost of sending email is close to zero. in TAU network, the cost of spam transaction is not cost zero, that require transaction fee satisfying miners. making lots of transaction increasing mining power is viewed as action to invest into tau future.
what is your idea?
in email work, spam is popular because of the cost of sending email is close to zero. in TAU network, the cost of spam transaction is not cost zero, that require transaction fee satisfying miners. making lots of transaction increasing mining power is viewed as action to invest into tau future.
what is your idea?
November 09, 2018, 04:33:29 AM
New medium article on time accumulation. of course, i found security issue is number 1 for crypto currency...
Proof of transaction to fight 51% attack — 51% attack is unavoidable on decentralized ledger according to Satoshi. What we can do is to make it harder to obtain 51%.
In the Proof of Work, if the super power such as member of G20 wants to secure 51% of computing power, it is possible through investment into factory. In the proof of stake, the stake could be purchased.
I would love to argue the most hard resource to build is “time” rather than equipment and money. In a fixed blocksize blockchain, the transactions are actually time.
Assuming long range attack is contained by checkpoints, once POT blockchain lives 10 years, in order to secure 51% POT power, one need to either secure enough other miner’s private keys to get power or build your own power for 10 years. The older the chain, the harder to achieve due to time can not be created. In POS and POW, the vintage of chain does not contribute enough into security.
TAU focuses on mobile node to make more people able to mine and secure the chain. We recently removed the mining club to make 51% formation harder. For a currency, security is everything. TAU- green, fair and secure.
Proof of transaction to fight 51% attack — 51% attack is unavoidable on decentralized ledger according to Satoshi. What we can do is to make it harder to obtain 51%.
In the Proof of Work, if the super power such as member of G20 wants to secure 51% of computing power, it is possible through investment into factory. In the proof of stake, the stake could be purchased.
I would love to argue the most hard resource to build is “time” rather than equipment and money. In a fixed blocksize blockchain, the transactions are actually time.
Assuming long range attack is contained by checkpoints, once POT blockchain lives 10 years, in order to secure 51% POT power, one need to either secure enough other miner’s private keys to get power or build your own power for 10 years. The older the chain, the harder to achieve due to time can not be created. In POS and POW, the vintage of chain does not contribute enough into security.
TAU focuses on mobile node to make more people able to mine and secure the chain. We recently removed the mining club to make 51% formation harder. For a currency, security is everything. TAU- green, fair and secure.
November 09, 2018, 12:15:53 AM
Both POT and POS using on chain info for security, so both are subject to long range and short range attack. However, the magnitude of the attack to both chain are different.
Long range attack could be fixed by setting checkpoint on chain as concensus, then foundation and major players provide snapshot of the chain, so new comers can find the real chain. I think all POS is doing this. I am not worry about it.
The short range attack is serious. It is how difficult to obtain 51%. In POS, when coins price is low, it is in fact easier to get 51%. In POT, when transaction volumn is low and chain is young, it is easier to get 51%. However, if we assume each block just contain fixed number of transactions, the transaction is really the time. So when chain grows older, the difficulty to obtain 51% attack is harder since you need to redo the whole time to get lots of transactions.
We recently removed club implementation is to make the 51% attack harder, this is an trade off. With club, you can easily to sell your power to others. Without clubbuing, the only way to give others power is by giving them private key using for voting on chains. Every few people is willing to giving out private key.
Long range attack could be fixed by setting checkpoint on chain as concensus, then foundation and major players provide snapshot of the chain, so new comers can find the real chain. I think all POS is doing this. I am not worry about it.
The short range attack is serious. It is how difficult to obtain 51%. In POS, when coins price is low, it is in fact easier to get 51%. In POT, when transaction volumn is low and chain is young, it is easier to get 51%. However, if we assume each block just contain fixed number of transactions, the transaction is really the time. So when chain grows older, the difficulty to obtain 51% attack is harder since you need to redo the whole time to get lots of transactions.
We recently removed club implementation is to make the 51% attack harder, this is an trade off. With club, you can easily to sell your power to others. Without clubbuing, the only way to give others power is by giving them private key using for voting on chains. Every few people is willing to giving out private key.
November 08, 2018, 04:29:02 PM
I think there is still a lot that needs to be improved from the Taucoin platform. Among them: The use of a private key wallet has not been functioning, meaning that when we enter a new wallet, we must enter with Facebook or email, cannot use the private key to enter. Secondly, the android application cannot transfer Coin, only serves to receive Coin.
Yes indeed! There are a lot since the team is starting from ground zero. Every suggestion, comment, interruption, and every thing that concerns TAU's community is of great help to the team. I believe they are doing everything they can right now to protect users and provide us with a better functionality. Mobile wallet, mobile mining, main-net, taunopoly... it adds up and yet we are just starting!
Yes, indeed they did the best for their coins and platforms. It's impossible for them to just leave. Moreover, TAUcoin already has its own discussion forum. In this case I think the developer must be able to work extra so that TAUcoin can run according to the roadmap, so that the user's trust will increase.
November 08, 2018, 02:12:37 AM
Let me explain more on long range attack. Hackers with initial high number of coins, such as foundation or founders, can start from very beginning of blockchain to rebuild the entire chain using high stack (in POS) or high transaction records (in POT). POW does not have this problem, because of the rebuild entire chain require spend energy twice. Checkpoint is a consensus proposal that once chain grows cerain length, it is considered finality, no one can change anything, unless it is an complete hard fork which require new sets of miners to follow. I believe checkpoint needs to be implemented in tau.
Another idea to discuss today, shall we make time window to be entire history rather than one year.
Entire history with checkpoint will make 51% attack very hard to acheive. Assume tau chain has run one year, 51% attack hackers need to run one year as well to form 51%. If we make it entire history, the longer the chain grow, the harder it is. Love to know your ideas.
Another idea to discuss today, shall we make time window to be entire history rather than one year.
Entire history with checkpoint will make 51% attack very hard to acheive. Assume tau chain has run one year, 51% attack hackers need to run one year as well to form 51%. If we make it entire history, the longer the chain grow, the harder it is. Love to know your ideas.
I agree on this one. It will be difficult for future attacks to take place if there will be a longer chain. An entire history will create a stronger blockchain and any minor misadjustments will be automatically ignored.
If I may ask, why are we not using "blocks" for checkpoint (i.e every 1M block) instead of "one year/entire history" ?
November 06, 2018, 02:15:14 PM
Let me explain more on long range attack. Hackers with initial high number of coins, such as foundation or founders, can start from very beginning of blockchain to rebuild the entire chain using high stack (in POS) or high transaction records (in POT). POW does not have this problem, because of the rebuild entire chain require spend energy twice. Checkpoint is a consensus proposal that once chain grows cerain length, it is considered finality, no one can change anything, unless it is an complete hard fork which require new sets of miners to follow. I believe checkpoint needs to be implemented in tau.
Another idea to discuss today, shall we make time window to be entire history rather than one year.
Entire history with checkpoint will make 51% attack very hard to acheive. Assume tau chain has run one year, 51% attack hackers need to run one year as well to form 51%. If we make it entire history, the longer the chain grow, the harder it is. Love to know your ideas.
Another idea to discuss today, shall we make time window to be entire history rather than one year.
Entire history with checkpoint will make 51% attack very hard to acheive. Assume tau chain has run one year, 51% attack hackers need to run one year as well to form 51%. If we make it entire history, the longer the chain grow, the harder it is. Love to know your ideas.
November 06, 2018, 01:07:56 AM
checkpoints are necessary for POW especially. in POS they have validators (Again, correct me if Im wrong) but both of these methods are to secure miners from being drawn into the wrong chain. Work (and electricity cost) and Stake (amounts of coins hoarded) can easily be manipulated somehow, thus double spending is sometimes inevitable. The need for checkpoints and finality of blockchain is needed to be fast.
If only every block has a checkpoint ( Idk if that is possible) then there is no need for a longer version. If more than 100,000 users starts mobile mining, how will there be a a fork? Temporary fork may appear over time especially when when two valid blocks are received in one node but we also have cumulative difficulty to determine which chain is the "best" chain therefore it would be difficult to tamper with the timestamp. Forks generated by this tampering on the local time to generate a new block, it will be immediately abandoned because of smaller cumulative difficulty (In the white paper)
If only every block has a checkpoint ( Idk if that is possible) then there is no need for a longer version. If more than 100,000 users starts mobile mining, how will there be a a fork? Temporary fork may appear over time especially when when two valid blocks are received in one node but we also have cumulative difficulty to determine which chain is the "best" chain therefore it would be difficult to tamper with the timestamp. Forks generated by this tampering on the local time to generate a new block, it will be immediately abandoned because of smaller cumulative difficulty (In the white paper)
November 06, 2018, 12:16:51 AM
There is one benefits for checkpoint, that is fight against long range attack. With checkpoint consensus, long range attack is avoided. What is your idea?
November 04, 2018, 11:46:19 PM
Many debaters today about blockchain checkpoint points only two MAJOR pros and cons. The overruling factor of "peer to peer transactions" and security from attacks from low difficulty blocks generated in the past. ( Correct me if i understand it wrong ). Even though checkpoints do nothing relative to the consensus (as in POW), I think it has nothing to deal with POT as we live with transactions by seconds/minutes. And that a fake chain cannot be created with fake transactions in my opinion. I dont know excatly but maybe devs can give light as to HOW exactly checkpoints create security in Proof of Transaction as consensus. It has nothing to do with bitcoin in anyway aside from checking the "correct" chain or "node" and preventing the system with compiling non sense data. If an attack could be made EASILY in Proof of Transaction, then we need checkpoints to secure our miners.. but still, I don't get the point of checkpoints in POT.
November 04, 2018, 07:41:11 PM
Discussion on checkpoint technology.
To prevent long range attack, which is someone rebuilding blockchain from very early time to make it look like a real chain to confuse new miners, the current POT whitepaper suggests using checkpoint to make certain portion of blockchain permanent.
My worry is that if checkpoint is adopted as consensus, there will be lots hard fork to be generated because the miner made wrong choise can not come back. Blockchain itself can not prove it is genuine or or. Maybe something like Yelp service can give ranking as what fork has best chances to be real one. This situation is hard to happen in POW, but possible in both POS and POT. POT is harder due to you do need to accumulate one year transactions, but in POS you can quickly move the coins to do that.
Love to hear feedback on checkpoint thinking.
To prevent long range attack, which is someone rebuilding blockchain from very early time to make it look like a real chain to confuse new miners, the current POT whitepaper suggests using checkpoint to make certain portion of blockchain permanent.
My worry is that if checkpoint is adopted as consensus, there will be lots hard fork to be generated because the miner made wrong choise can not come back. Blockchain itself can not prove it is genuine or or. Maybe something like Yelp service can give ranking as what fork has best chances to be real one. This situation is hard to happen in POW, but possible in both POS and POT. POT is harder due to you do need to accumulate one year transactions, but in POS you can quickly move the coins to do that.
Love to hear feedback on checkpoint thinking.
Jump to: